4.5 Article

Sleep deprivation but not a whisker trim increases nerve growth factor within barrel cortical neurons

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 898, 期 1, 页码 105-112

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(01)02149-7

关键词

plasticity; NGF; whisker; somatosensory cortex; immunohistochemistry; rat

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD36520] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH60308] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [NS25378, NS31453] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sleep is hypothesized to influence activity-driven changes in the brain microcircuitry. A change in the barrel cortex following the removal of the mystacial whiskers in rats is a model fur synaptic plasticity. This model was combined with sleep deprivation and immunoreactivity for nerve growth factor (NGF) was determined. Sleep deprivation for 6 h after light onset significantly increased the number of NGF-immunoreactive pyramidal neurons in layer V of the barrel cortex. However, unilateral trimming of mystacial whiskers did not affect NGF immunoreactivity in the contralateral or ipsilateral barrel cortices when rats were allowed to sleep. if the rats: received a unilateral whisker cut at light onset, and subsequently were deprived of sleep, increases in the NGF-immunoreactive neurons were only observed in the barrel cortex on the side that received input from the remaining intact whiskers. In contrast. NGF immunoreactivity on the side contralateral to the cut whiskers decreased in sleep-deprived animals to levels below those observed in the control animals that were allowed to sleep. These results suggest that NGF expression is influenced by the interaction of sleep, afferent input and the nature of ongoing synaptic reorganization. Further, results are consistent with the hypothesis that growth factors, such as NGF, form part of the mechanism responsible for sleep regulation and that they also form one facet of sleep-related synaptic plasticity. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据